Allowed

Abdul Rubb and Others v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC14 Jul 2011CRP/272/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a civil revision petition where the Taluk Land Board rejected a plea for exemption from excess land order due to lack of documents. Court held the Board must provide an opportunity to substantiate the claim before rejection. Order remanded for fresh decision after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.10.2009 quashed; application remanded to TLB for fresh decision after giving opportunity to substantiate claim.

Abdul Rubb and Others Vs the State of Kerala and Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933

¶4

CRP.No. 272 of 2011() --------------------------------L-2 SM 462/PPM OF TALUK LAND BOARD, PATHANAPURAM

¶5

REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS:

¶6

--------------------------------------------------------------

¶7

1. ABDUL RUBB, THODIYIL VEEDU, MADA NADA, CHADYAMANGALAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. LAILA BEEVI, THODIYIL VEEDU, MADA NADA, CHADYAMANGALAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3. RASEENA, THODIYIL VEEDU, MADA NADA, CHADYAMANGALAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI, SRI.D.KESAVAN NAIR, SMT.N.V.SANDHYA.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------------------

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PATHANAPURAM - 691 601, PATHANAPURAM P.O.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.L.SAJEEVAN

¶16

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

CRP.NO.272/2011

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEX.1:	COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD. 23RD AUGUST 1962.
ANNEX.II:	COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD. 8/09/1980.
ANNEX.III:	COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD. 8/09/1980.
ANNEX.IV:	COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD. 31/12/1989.
ANNEX.V:	COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD. 17/09/1997.
ANNEX.VI:	COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD.30/09/1996.
ANNEX.VII:	COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD. 30/09/1997.
ANNEX.VIII:	COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD. 17/09/97.
ANNEX.IX:	COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD. 14/08/06.
ANNEX.X:	COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD. 14/08/06.
ANNEX.XI:	COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD. 14/08/06.
ANNEX.XII:	COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DTD.13/09/2006.
ANNEX.XIII:	COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DTD. 14/02/2007.
ANNEX.XIV:	COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DTD. 14/02/2007.
ANNEX.XV:	COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DTD. 4/10/2007.
ANNEX.XVI:	COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DTD. 30/10/2007.
ANNEX.XVII:	COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DTD. 30/10/2007.
RESPONDEN	T'S ANNEXURES: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

¶26

C.R.P.No.272 of 2011

¶27

Dated this 14^th day of July, 2011

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the proceeding of the Taluk Land Board, Pathanapuram (for short, "the TLB”) dated 15.10.2009 rejecting the application dated 15.10.2008 submitted by them to exempt that portion of the property they claimed to have purchased from the excess land of the original declarant.

¶30

The TLB originally decided as per its proceeding to take over 1 acre in survey No.36/2 of Idamulakkal Village and 28 acres in survey No.219 of Panniyoor Village as excess land from the declarant, Ahammed Kunju Asan Mohammed Khan Asan. The said proceeding was passed on 12.06.1997 following the direction issued by this Court in the order dated 15.01.2007 in C.R.P.No.1031 of 1989. The said 1 acre in Idamulakkal Village was measured and taken possession on 04.11.1997 and it was then included in T.P.No.5187, 5188 and 12245. While so, according to the petitioners one Binu and Saina acquired the property in survey No.36/2 of Idamulakkal Village from the declarant. They filed W.P.(C).No.23196 of 1997 in this Court

¶31

C.R.P.No.272 of 2011

¶32

-: 2 :-

¶33

seeking certain directions in respect of the 1 acre in survey 36/2 of Idamulakkal Village claiming that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the said property. This Court disposed of that writ petition dated July 27, 2005. The proceeding of the TLB (Ext.P5, in that proceeding) was quashed to the extent it related to the said Binu and Saina without prejudice to the right of the TLB to pass fresh orders with notice to them and other interested parties. While so, Binu sold her share in the property to certain others from whom petitioners are said to have acquired that share. The share of Saina was assigned to the petitioners by Annexure-9 to 11. Thus, petitioners claimed title and possession of the property covered by the said assignment deeds.

¶34

The TLB continued its proceeding in respect of survey 36/2 of Idamulakkal Village. Learning about that, petitioners made an application dated 15.10.2008 to the TLB to exempt that portion of the property they claimed to have acquired as aforesaid from the excess land of the original declarant. Various contentions were raised in the said application. That application was rejected by the TLB as per proceeding dated 15.10.2009 which is called in question in this civil revision.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioners contend that the TLB

¶36

C.R.P.No.272 of 2011

¶37

-: 3 :-

¶38

has not gone into the claim made by petitioners and instead rejected the claim for the reason that they did not produce records within the time prescribed. Learned counsel requested that petitioners may be given an opportunity to produce relevant records and substantiate the claim of petitioners before the TLB. It is also contended that though the original declarant has larger extent of land the TLB is proceeding against property in the possession of petitioners alone, even leaving other assignees from the declarant or their assignees. Learned Government Pleader has contended that sufficient time was given to the petitioners to substantiate their claim. It is contended that a claim under Sec.7(E) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (as amended Act 21/2006) (for short, "the Act”) cannot be raised before the TLB since the question of deemed tenancy is to be decided by the Land Tribunal concerned.

¶39

It is not necessary for me to go into the question whether petitioners have raised claim under Sec.7E of the Act and if so it is entertainable before the TLB. That is a matter which the TLB has to decide having regard to the relevant provisions of law. But, it is seen from the impugned order that the TLB has not gone into the claim of petitioners obviously for the reason that petitioners did not produce records in respect of

¶40

C.R.P.No.272 of 2011

¶41

-: 4 :-

¶42

the claim within the time prescribed. It is stated that petitioners were given notice to submit their objection, if any before 20.08.2009 as per decision of the TLB dated 10.08.2009. But, before 20.08.2009 petitioners did not prefer any objection or produce any document. In the meeting of the TLB on 07.10.2009 petitioners made request to grant another opportunity to produce relevant documents but the TLB was not inclined and rejected that request. Having regard to the contentions raised, I am inclined to think that the TLB should have given an opportunity to petitioners to substantiate their claim rather than declining the request and rejecting the application dated 15.10.2008. In the circumstance, I am inclined to interfere.

¶43

Resultantly this civil revision is allowed by way of remand. The proceeding of the TLB, Pathanapuram (L-2-SM 462/PPM) dated 15.10.2009 is quashed and application dated 15.10.2008 preferred by the petitioners is remitted to the TLB for fresh decision after giving opportunity to substantiate their claim. Petitioners shall also be given an opportunity for hearing. It is open to the petitioners to produce documents which they rely in support of their claim before the TLB.

¶44

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶45

Sbna/-

Abdul Rubb and Others v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rubb and Others v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Radhakrishna Pai Vs Sumithrabai

M.Madhu Vs State Bank of Travancore & Another

Vamana Prabhu @ N.P.Prabhu Vs Sree Krishnaswamy Devaswom

Varghese Vs Thressiamma Varkey

S.Vadivel Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Scariya Vs State of Kerala and Another